Overview In early 2026 both Maharashtra and Chhattisgarh enacted new anti‑conversion statutes. While the governments present the measures as safeguards against forced or fraudulent conversions, the provisions impose prior permission, public disclosure, and a reversal of the burden of proof onto the convert. The laws join a growing list of at least ten Indian states that impose detailed restrictions on the constitutional right to freedom of religion . A batch of petitions challenging these statutes is pending before the Supreme Court , making the issue highly relevant for UPSC aspirants. Key Developments The Maharashtra law mandates a 60‑day notice, permission from a designated authority, and registration within 25 days; failure renders the conversion null. The authority must publish the notice locally, including at the relevant gram panchayat , and invite objections for 30 days. If objections arise, the authority can direct police to conduct an inquiry, effectively criminalising the conversion process. The Chhattisgarh law mirrors Maharashtra’s requirements but exempts reconversion to one’s ancestral religion and extends its reach to community religious gatherings. Both statutes replace earlier, less detailed provisions (e.g., the 1968 Madhya Pradesh law that Chhattisgarh’s law supersedes). Important Facts At least ten Indian states now have anti‑conversion statutes, reflecting a broader trend of state‑level regulation of personal faith. The laws shift the evidentiary burden to the individual alleging conversion, contrary to the usual criminal law principle of "innocent until proven guilty." The legislation is championed by the BJP , which argues that the measures protect social harmony. Critics argue that policing faith infringes on personal liberty and may exacerbate communal tensions. UPSC Relevance Understanding these statutes is essential for GS 2 (Polity) and GS 1 (Society) papers. Aspirants should analyse: The constitutional balance between freedom of religion and the state's duty to prevent coercion. Judicial precedents on "force or fraud" in conversion cases and the role of the Supreme Court in adjudicating such challenges. The impact of federalism: how state legislation interacts with the Union’s constitutional mandate. Potential implications for communal harmony, a topic frequently examined in the Ethics paper (GS 4). Way Forward While the courts deliberate, the states should consider: Amending the statutes to focus solely on demonstrable cases of coercion, thereby aligning with constitutional safeguards. Establishing an independent oversight mechanism to prevent misuse of the law for political or majoritarian agendas. Promoting inter‑faith dialogue and education to address conversion concerns without resorting to punitive legislation. For UPSC preparation, candidates must track the Supreme Court’s verdict, assess its constitutional reasoning, and evaluate the broader socio‑political implications of state‑driven regulation of personal faith.